The Following clickons will help you understand the consequence of the CFC ruling


   Who is the Campaign for Fiscal Equity?

   Opponent
... Lydia Segal
, Political Science, Law, Corruption Professor 
   Campaign for Fiscal Equity., et al
., Respondents –v- NYS et al., Appellants

   OPINION OF THE COURT Regarding the CFE  
  CFE
COURT OF APPEALS REMEDIAL ORDER

   THE  ZARB  REPORT

To the Suffolk County Legislature from Fred Gorman , March 20, 2007

In 1998 this body challenged the LIPA-LILCO bail out to protect the utility rate payers of Suffolk County. The date you voted to do that, Governor Pataki and several State Senators arrived with a hundred LILCO employees and a grand stand to denounce your vote. You chose to help the rate payers of Suffolk County over the money elite and your political parties. At the same time I sued the Governor, LIPA and the Speakers in federal court because in 1995, the voters of New York State rejected a proposition that would have given LIPA the authority to purchase LILCO’s stock. Unfortunately, The US Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that I could not stand in the shoes of all the taxpayers in New York State.

Knowing that this body’ has gone beyond it’s responsibilities to protect its constituents and that I can’t achieve standing, I humbly ask you to consider protecting the property owners of Suffolk County from Donald Trump and the other property Barons of New York City by seeking judicial relief from the constitutionally flawed CFE ruling that is based on absurd findings attempting to nourish an elephant by feeding it money instead of hey. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity indirectly transfers a huge portion of New York City’s property and income tax educational burden to us.


In the matter of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity -v- NYS. The Courts determined the State Constitution requires the State to offer all children an education in a suitable learning environment, consisting of basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable them to eventually function productively as voters and jurists.

The courts found NYC schoolchildren were not receiving a sound basic education and that there was a causal link between the State's current funding system and such failure. The findings were based on various "inputs" and "outputs". The outputs demonstrated that NYC schools have a larger drop out rate and lower literacy rates. To remedy this inequity the Zarb Commission was formed. With the aid of S&P the commission determined the best method to achieve better results is to use data from the 25% top performing school districts as measure of success and then adjust expenses to NYC dollars.

During the process the court observed:

1.        Serious gaps in rent-control legislation

2.        The ultimate resolution lies in the hands of City and State Legislatures, since housing, well-being of residents, and the property interests of building owners should only be resolved by the legislature.

3.        State Legislature has not funded to meet its constitutional education obligation to children.

In truth, rent-control is almost non existent and the City has plenty of affordable and section 8 housing.

Since the late 1950’s NYC’s elite property owners controlled NYC politics. In order to maximize their profits they steered NYC’s into financial crisis, an income tax and eventually a CFE ruling that makes the State responsible for a huge portion of their educational burden. These actions permitted the property barons of NYC to maximize rental profits and property values. Do you think they could get a million dollars for an apartment if the property taxes were $15,000 instead of $5,000?

Despite the fact that the Executive and Legislature are the only constitutional bodies permitted to develop aid formulas, the court imposed its authority and reached an opinion by comparing the outcomes of the State’s top 25% school districts to NYC without considering the City’s history of school corruption, dereliction of duty or taxing system designed to enrich its richest citizens. Nor did it consider the inequity of reducing state aid to other districts in order to correct one of the richest city in the world’s educational deficiencies. Furthermore, several of Zarb’s findings are flawed.

Please consider suing the State Legislature and City on behalf of the property owners of Suffolk County because:

  1. The State Legislature met its constitutional obligation when it developed an aid formula that provided more assistance to failing districts. This is why LI receives 13% of the state aid to educate 17% of the State’s students
  2. The courts superseded its authority when it arbitrarily decided to place the burdens of correcting the educational mess NYC created through corruption and neglect on the rest of the states property owners.
  3. The courts decision robs aid from the property owners of school districts that struggled to meet the states obligation to reward the land barons of the city that allowed one of the most respected city school districts deteriorate rather than adjust property taxes.
  4. Suffolk Co taxpayers cannot get a fair trial in a state that the Judicial, Executive & Assembly are controlled by NYC
  5. The inputs and outcomes do not correctly compare local control and taxation of the top 25 Districts to NYC.
  6. All accepted class size studies conclude that students in classes of 25 do not produce better academic results than when the same students are in classes of 35. thus there is no constructional need to reduce NYC class size
  7. You can’t statistically compare a 7,000 person school district to a million student school district
  8. You can’t educate someone who is not interested in education or can’t be educated to the State’s minimum
  9. The Zarb report based its assumption on the top 25% of state districts level of success and the states minimum educational responsibility.  The Court ruling merely required 

10.     The City’s real-estate and income taxes has to be equalized to the same formula as Long Island property

11.     If NYC was a state, its $16 billion education budget for 1 million students would rank 7th in the nation.

  1. The 2004 per-student difference between Sachem & NYC is  $799 (Total $817,915,526)